Integral more general then Lebesgue integral?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter r4nd0m
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    General Integral
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the Lebesgue integral and the exploration of more general integrals that could encompass a broader class of functions. While the Lebesgue integral is defined for measurable functions and possesses key properties such as sigma-additivity and translation invariance, attempts to create a more general integral may compromise these essential characteristics. The gauge integral, which includes the Lebesgue integral as a special case, is highlighted for its ability to integrate some unbounded functions while maintaining a definition nearly as straightforward as the Riemann integral. The conversation also references Pugh's Real Mathematical Analysis for insights into integration theories beyond Lebesgue's framework.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lebesgue integrability
  • Familiarity with measure theory concepts
  • Knowledge of the gauge integral and its properties
  • Awareness of key theorems such as Fatou's Lemma and the Dominated Convergence Theorem
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the properties and applications of the gauge integral
  • Study Pugh's Real Mathematical Analysis for advanced integration theories
  • Explore the implications of measure theory on integration methods
  • Examine the proofs and applications of Fatou's Lemma and the Dominated Convergence Theorem
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of real analysis, and anyone interested in advanced integration techniques and the theoretical foundations of measure theory.

r4nd0m
Messages
96
Reaction score
1
integral more general than the Lebesgue integral?

The Lebesgue integral is defined for measurable functions. But isn't it possible to define a more general integral defined for a larger class of functions?
I guess that we would then loose some of the fine properties of the Lebesgue integral - but which and why?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm not sure what you mean. There is "The" Lesbeque integral and a wide class of "Lebesque" integrals. The latter involves all methods of putting a "measure" on sets that preserve "sigma-additivity" and "translation invariance". Those are what you would lose if you used any more "general" definition of measure- and they are fairly important!
 
I seem to recall reading something in Pugh's Real Mathematical Analysis where he described some integration theories more general than Lebesgue's.
 
But when the functions they describe lose the basic required properties of the Lebesgue integral, the integrals become harder to define and less useful.
 
And what if we changed open sets in the definition of a measurable function to some more general sets? What would be wrong?
 
Just stick to the definition of integrability in the sense of wide class Lebesque
integrability and you are ok.Otherwise you'll run into problems and possibly paradoxes!
 
The gauge integral (and is variations) includes the Lebesgue integral as a special case. It is equivalent for bounded functions on a finite interval. It can also integrate some unbounded functions and some functions that are not absolutely integrable. Its definition is nearly as simple as the Riemann integral.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henstock–Kurzweil_integral
 
Last edited:
As others have mentioned over three years ago, measure theory is one reason why the generalized Riemann integral is not used. Also, part of the utility of the Lebesgue theory seems to lie in the theorems that allow the interchange of limits and integrals, namely Fatou's Lemma, Monotone Convergence Theorem, and the Dominated Convergence theorem (which by the way are simple and nice results once measure theory is developed).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
7K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
11K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K